Absolutely correct. Yes, Clinton did balance the budget by reducing the growth of government (he didn't actually reduce spending to my knowledge) and increasing taxes. When former President Bush took office the projections were for surplus revenues but the Bush adminstration didn't actually allow those surpluses to materialize which was a huge mistake. The national debt at the time was about $5 trillion and we needed those surplus revenues to pay down that debt. Instead he cut taxes and then embarked on a spending spree based upon deficit spending which included the presciption drug program for Medicare which was unfunded as well as involving the US in two wars without raising taxes to pay for them. While President Obama is not increasing deficit spending at the same percentage rate as former President Bush in actual dollars he's far surpassing the former adminstration. Since interest is paid on the dollar amount of the national debt the Obama spending is going to have a far greater negative impact than the Bush deficits but both of them can be blamed for our current government funding fiasco. The amount of deficit spending is currently so large that neither tax increase of spending cuts alone can balance the budget. Neither party seems to be willing to admit this as the Democrats call for even more spending and even with tax increase the national debt will continue to increase and the Republicans are calling for spending cuts but without tax increases the national debt will continue to go up.
We will support President Obama because the Republican party does not have a single canidate that would do any better. Romney? He has been a Liberal his whole life until he started running for President. He was Pro choice, Pro universal healthcare, etc. etc. Gingrich? The party of "Family Values" is going to elect a President who cheated on two different wives? Newt has proven he only cares about Newt, not the policies of the G.O.P. The rest of the field are so extreme that they do not appeal to more than a few percent of their own party. I never vote along party lines, I was a Republican from the age of 18 to 39. Even as a Republican, I did not vote for George W. Bush. I left the party after the last election because the party no longer represents any form of moderate thought. You have to be a Evangelical extremist in order to support the party. Provide a canidate who actually has a decent plan and has a chance of actually living up to it.
I would suggest considering voting for someone other than either a Democrat or Republican and voting for someone that actually supports the same political agenda as the individual. As has been pointed out voting for either a Republican or Democrat is voting for a continuation of the same government which is the cause of the problem as both are equally responsible. Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil. I would suggest reading the following link (and subordinate links which expand the statements made within it). While not perfect studies have shown that more Democrats and Republicans support it than they do the party platforms of their own parties. http://www.lp.org/platform
And while I agree with the majority of the statement, I still see Libertarian canidates saying they are against abortion. If they are truely for freedom of choice, then the government should stay out of a citizens right to choose to have an abortion. I actuallly do not believe that abortions should be used as a form of birth control, but who am I to tell someone I don't know what they can or cannot do with their own body? I do not know the circumstances of the situation so it is none of my business. I also am not sure that turning education over to a for-profit entity is a good idea. It would further increase the divide between rich and poor.
It's like Newt sez in this speech, the market will begin to recover on election night, 2012 when it's announced congress has been handed over to republicans. If Obama thinks his hands are tied now, winning re-election will no doubt turn his hair white the first year of his new term. You know what I don't get, PN? How otherwise intelligent people can vote for more of the same as listed in the OP? Will we see those numbers DOUBLED? And if not, why not? Obama talks about nothing but increasing revenue... he has no plan nor interest in reducing spending! Amazing. We've got three choices, folks. Vote for Obama... Vote for the Republican candidate.... Vote for a third party (IOW, vote for Obama) I hope we have a lot of soul-searching between now and Nov 2012.
In the last 31 years, There has been a Republican President for 20 years of it, and Democrat Presidents for 11. How are the Republican Presidents any better than the Democrat ones? How was President G.W. Bush any better than President Obama?
Well, let's see...4.7% unemp, $1.62 gal gas, $4 prescriptions, $600 tax rebate checks. Yeah, the bottom fell outta the economy during the last year of Bush's term, but it's unfair to disregard the relatively good years we enjoyed. Obama's economy is hurting the avg American. The fat cats are the ones getting all the bailouts, grants and loans. We the People are getting screwed. You're right about one thing, there's never been a perfect president. But some are definitely worse than others. IMO, Barack Obama is the worst in history. I'm appalled you'll be voting for him again.
And I could not believe people were blind enough to vote for President Bush twice, but they did. I was even a Republican at the time, but never voted for him. President Obama has achieved several good things that I support: Repeal of DADT, Fair Pay act, More funding for the VA, better foreign policy than the previous eight years, Closer to Universal Healthcare (he used a conservative plan, but the GOP changed their minds due to the person trying to implement the policy), and lot, lot more. I am not happy with everything he did, but no one is perfect.
Notice you ignored the low unemp, tax rebate checks, $4 prescriptions and cheap gas. All the things that really AFFECT the average American. DADT, foreign policy and the killing of terrorist leaders doesn't help anybody's daily life. The unemployed are still unemployed and there are no jobs. And you will vote for more of the same.
Employment varies based on the state of the economy. When companies lay off people just to increase proffits, higher unemployment happens. Presidents do not have control of things like unemployment rates, prescription plans, and gas prices. The Presidents powers are limited in our country. No President can make laws or approve budgets, that is the job of Congress. The president can control the military, create treaties, and recognize and recieve foreighn heads of state. Through Executive Orders, the President can issue orders but even those are limited and can be fought by Congress if they object. THe things I brought up are things that are directly the result of the powers of the President. It is not the President's job to hold the hand of Senators and House members. It IS their job to work with the President to work to the benefit of the citizens of the United States.
So was former President Bush intervening in the US economy to effect the price of gasoline and prescription drugs? I thought conservatives opposed government interventionism in the economy but apparently not. The $600 "rebates" were paid for with deficit spending and I thought conservatives opposed deficit spending. "The bottom fell out of the economy during the last year of Bush's term" has to be the greatest understatement ever made. The unemployment rate virtually doubled before Bush left office and then continued to increase in the first few months of the Obama adminstration before Obama could realistically do anything about it. It has remained virtually unchanged since then because the government really can't create prosperity and jobs. It is unquestionably true that Obama has wasted money in the pursuit of borrowing to buy prosperity but this was also done by Bush. Strange how the TARP bailouts are being tied to Obama when they came from the Bush adminstration. "Some are worse than others" is very accurate but they have something in common. They are all members of the Republican-Democrat controlled government of the United States and they have all been bad for the United States. If we want to make a list of "bad presidents" we could simply start with any president in the 20th or 21st century. None of them have been "good for America" from where I'm sitting. It is truly a comparison of "bad and worse" no matter which president we start with. With possible rare exceptions every president has been worse than their predecessor. Obama is probably worse than Bush (except when it comes to violations of US law and the Constitution) and Bush was worse than Clinton who was worse the George GW Bush who was worse than Reagan who was worse the Carter who was worse than..... The point being that every president is worse then the one they follow so whoever replaces Obama will be worse than Obama regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican and regardless of whether that occurs in 2012 or 2016. If we don't break the control of Republicans-Democrats of our government every president is going to be worse than their predecessor.
Bush was indeed lucky to have inherited a strong economy, low unemployment, and a surplus budget from Clinton.
Which, during his time in office, he managed to change into a record increase in the national debt and a financial collapse by the end of his presidency. I'm no lover of Obama and, in time, Obama could be more harmful that Bush, but Bush is currently the best example of how a president can destroy America while in office. Obama has yet to finish his term in office so we can't do an accurate comparison at this time.
What is obama's decent plan? In what way does it differ from the plan he already launched to such amazing success?
You approve of his policies? Shutting down oil drilling? Raiding businesses that didn't donate to him? His insane appointments of insane people to key posts? His divisive rhetoric? His disdain for people in flyover territory? His lying every time he opens his mouth? His BIZARRE behavior. Solyndra, lightsquared, boeing, fast and furious? And if you don't think he was the head of those operations you are naive and you should do some research before the elections.
US unemployed 12 million in 2008, 14 million now. However you forgot to mention we have 6 million more people than in 2009. Simple math says 4 million jobs have been created. That's better than Bush by the time he left office.
That's very simple math because those 6 million more people represent births in the United States and they're not quite ready to join the workforce. But yes, every month more people join the workforce but they are not recorded by the unemployment statistics that only represent those who have become unemployed and are collecting unemployment benefits. The actual number of unemployed is estimated to be about 18 million now from what I've read but I don't know what the number was when Bush left office.
You're kidding, right? You are taking the BEST numbers over an 8 year period, and this is just as wrong as taking the WORSE numbers over that same period. . .do you remember the gas at over $4.00 a gallon under Bush. . .I do! And you do not take into account the steep downward trend started under Bush, that led to the worse recession since the great depression, and fell on Obama's lap JUST as he was elected! I WILL be voting for Obama again. . . the GOP candidates certainly don't have ANY answer to fix the mess we have been left in in 2008, any faster than Obama has!
President Obama hasn't done anything positive for the economy and his huge deficits are going to cause long-term harm to the US economy according to the CBO. Many economists stated that the government should do nothing related to the recession that started under Bush and which has continued. The recession was predominately driven by the over-production of new homes based upon speculation in the real estate market where about 3 million excess new homes were built. We still have about 2 million excess homes on the market today and until those are consumed by the economy there won't be a recovery from the recession. It's really that simple and there is nothing the White House or the Republicans can do about it. It is a market issue, not a government issue, and the market will correct itself over time.
The only reason it seems like Obama is doing well is because he keeps borrowing money and increasing the national deficit by spending it and making things look a little better. Sure there are some imidiate problems that need to be fixed but making the car look better dosent do anything if there are too many problems in the engine. Fix the bigger problems first then make things look better. This is why a presidient dosent work in the first place. They could be doing great fixing things in the long term but dont get re elected because the people arent getting enough short term fixes.
President's can't do anything by themselves. Presidents need the help of Congress in order to make any lasting changes. Blaming President Obama for unemployment is just like blaming President Bush for getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, many folks like to blame them, but President Bush could not have done so without the scared sheep effect and like the GOP is fond of saying : Government can't create jobs. This means you can't blame President Obama for unemployment. You also can't blame any President for the price of Gasoline.
I'm glad we all can blame Obama for the economy and everything else. That makes it super easy on the brain. Hell, if we were to use our heads and think, that would be to stressfull.
Actually the primary problem with the US economy is a corrupted incorporation of Keynsian economic philosophy of government interventionism which is basically supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The 2008 recession was a result of the actions by both Republicans and Democrats. They are the problem and not the cure. The economy will eventually recover on it's own and the only question is how much damage our government will do to our future economy? The prospects are not good. If either the Republicans or Democrats wanted to do all they could to repair the damage already done the first thing they would do is balance the 2012 budget and propose a surplus budget for 2013 but neither Democrats or Republicans have proposed doing that. They're not even close to proposing that and it would only be the first step in addressing a real economic recovery.
